Sarah Palin not running for president?
-
fuck I thought you were spartan posting about CoA for a moment there
-
What are we actually discussing? I got lost seven pages back.
-
What are we actually discussing? I got lost seven pages back.
It was a concept for a new plot. But then we discovered… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzdj_VKpKTk
-
Haha, yes academia really isn't the institution it once was. But then the left wanted to get rid of all those silly ideas like right and wrong (as it is hurtful that someone has to lose), empirical evidence (climategate anyone) or open debate (the reason why it took climategate to expose the cranks).
For those who want to read about climategate:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/
Something I love about Great Britain, is that we have some of the best newspapers in the world. Our papers have real balls our largest papers especially.
The nutshell of climategate was that East Anglia University, the single institution which has and still does have, the most influence on climate change, was caught red handed manipulating data and actively supressing the objective facts that the worlds climate has 'cooled' not warmed up, over this last decade.
Seriously I worry about the state of some universities, as they seem more and more to swim against Enlightenment principles, those of reason, fact and objectivity.
If you're going to take your scientific information from bloggers, it's worthwhile checking if the person in question possesses the requisite expertise to be reporting on the subject. James Delingpole is an English Lit grad who has no scientific acumen whatsoever.
The emails do not provide examples of manipulating the data or suppressing the facts, which is why after a thorough investigation, the Science and Technology Select committee recommended the reinstatement of Phil Jones who was at the centre of the supposed conspiracy. Have you examined the contexts of those emails or their authors, or are you relying on bloggers to interpret the snippets?
Was the person who wrote "we can't account for the lack of warming", for example, engaging in deceit, by privately expressing thoughts contrary to their public scientific claims?
No. Actually, in that very same email, Delingpole conveniently ignores that the author cited their publicly published paper expressing his dismay at the inadequacies of a particular temperature tracking system, whilst also stating that there are many other more reliable indicators of ongoing warming, such as the melting of the polar ice caps and rising sea levels.
I'm sure that if you take the time to thoroughly investigate the emails controversy, the simplistic view presented by certain figures in the media, is shown for the distortion it truly is.
Meerkat, absolutely nothing you have said changes the facts
that the release of the emails categorically and resolutely demonstrates that those as East Anglia University had suppressed evidence that the Earth was cooling. And worked to try and prevent and open debate and true empirical study of climate change.You should again read what was in the article, in particular the admission from the climategate scientists (ok scientist is a push in their case) that they were trying to hide that global warming was not happening.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/
Their own words are especially damning and illuminating.
Thats the difference between the left and right, conservatives work on facts, the left works on dogma.
Same with the world economy, as left wingers believe so dogmatically in the power of the state which requires lots and lots of spending, that are both unable and unwilling to accept, that this generally weakens the economy and makes people poorer, despite the overwhelming and clear evidence that big spending leads to big debts and a big increase in poverty.
Spartan
-
The translated text from your Ottmar link. "Climate has nothing to do with environmental protection hardly anything, says the economist Ottmar Edenhofer. The next World Climate Summit in Cancún is actually an economic summit at which it related to the distribution of resources. But it must be clearly said: we distribute through climate policy de facto capital of the world order. That the owners of coal and oil, of which are not thrilled, is obvious." Interview: Bernhard Pötter http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... 73227.html
You do realise that's not a quote, right? That's called a subhead, and it's written by the interviewer or the editorial staff. I did point that out in the last post too.
IPCC, Largest in history? Virtually everyone with qualifacation agrees? All 60 of them? http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions ... 17643.html Even all of those never agreed to the concensus. Ben Santer edited the Summary for Policy Makers Chapter after they signed off. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Scien ... 95-Ch8.htm
Your blog links contain lies. There's no other way to put it. If anyone cares to check, here's a direct link to the IPCC reports - feel free to count the number of lead authors, contributing authors and scientific reviewers. Often, even a single chapter of those reports has more than 60 scientists directly involved. In total, they number in the thousands.
All this is rather moot seeing as the "Debate is Over" the "Deniers" won. http://dailybayonet.com/?p=9031 The Alarmists never could produce empirical evidence supporting their claims. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-dav ... -evidence/ Even poor old "I invented the Internet" Al Gore is being thrown under the bus. http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/43985
Just tossing out links to other people's blogs with one sentence summaries gets pretty dull - it's not a very entertaining way to have a discussion. I'll just say I've never been a fan of Gore, and as for the suggestion that the debate is over… well, just ask yourself this - exactly how many national or international scientific bodies of repute dissent with the AGW theory? What percentage of published climatologists agree with it?
-
If you're going to take your scientific information from bloggers, it's worthwhile checking if the person in question possesses the requisite expertise to be reporting on the subject. James Delingpole is an English Lit grad who has no scientific acumen whatsoever.
The emails do not provide examples of manipulating the data or suppressing the facts, which is why after a thorough investigation, the Science and Technology Select committee recommended the reinstatement of Phil Jones who was at the centre of the supposed conspiracy. Have you examined the contexts of those emails or their authors, or are you relying on bloggers to interpret the snippets?
Was the person who wrote "we can't account for the lack of warming", for example, engaging in deceit, by privately expressing thoughts contrary to their public scientific claims?
No. Actually, in that very same email, Delingpole conveniently ignores that the author cited their publicly published paper expressing his dismay at the inadequacies of a particular temperature tracking system, whilst also stating that there are many other more reliable indicators of ongoing warming, such as the melting of the polar ice caps and rising sea levels.
I'm sure that if you take the time to thoroughly investigate the emails controversy, the simplistic view presented by certain figures in the media, is shown for the distortion it truly is.
… Their own words are especially damning and illuminating...
Their own words are snippets of conversations they were having. I've provided you with an example of how Delingpole has quote-mined them by failing to explain the context of their comments, thus changing their meaning.
Here is what Kevin Trenberth was actually saying:
In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.
Anyway, I'm tired of going around in circles with you guys, covering the same ground. People can make up their own minds! Do you want to trust a bunch of bloggers, many of whom are completely untrained in the field, or the 97-98% of the most published climate researchers who say anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the planet?
-
Do you want to trust a bunch of bloggers, many of whom are completely untrained in the field, or the 97-98% of the most published climate researchers who say anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the planet?
This sums up the argument as far as I'm concerned. Sure, our earth may naturally go through long phases of getting warmer and getting colder, but if that many professionals of science are saying green house gases are having an effect maybe some precautions should be taken just in case they happen to be right (Which the odds suggest).
-
The 97-98% of the most published climate researchers who say anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the planet?
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12728/Glo ... -consensus Not that science is done by concensus.
The claim that "Deniers" ignore the data is patently false. Alarmists tend to cling to models and theory even when they are refuted by observation. Empirical real world observations always trump models, unless your a 98 percenter.
Empirical evidence of warmer temperatures 1000+ years ago.
http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/mel ... c%7c%7c%7c
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Trenberth's "Missing" heat email. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011 ... eat-found/
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing as predicted by Green computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than Green computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than Green computer models have predicted.
The argument boils down to beliving in "Models" that have made no valid predictions. Or empirical measurements.
For example the "Missing Tropospheric Hot Spot". All AGW Models predicted this hot spot, yet it has never been detected by empirical observations(some 25 million radiosonode flights). The central "Assumption" of AGW Theory has no basis in reality. http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
In an attempt to conceal this ugly fact the alarmists have tried some rather dishonest tricks. Like splicing in wind shear data as a measure of temperature or changing the graph scale to show "Zero" as a bright red. http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
Here's an "Expert" discussing "Models" and the SUN's effect on Climate. Strangely he is not an "Un-trained Blogger" Just one of the EIKE Scientists who belives that observations are more important than Models and Theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8O ... r_embedded
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations
and its implications. http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... new-paper/http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... zer-03.pdf
http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/ Solar Angular Momentum Data. What drives the climate cycles on earth? The data in Fig 3 shows the Pattern of Solar Angular Momentum of past cycles like the Maunder Minimum. A pattern which has been repeated in the recent low sunspot Cycle 24. With 1998 and 1819 matched up.
-
The 97-98% of the most published climate researchers who say anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the planet?
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12728/Glo ... -consensus Not that science is done by concensus.
Empirical evidence of warmer temperatures 1000+ years ago.
Can this actually count as factual? This is only theory, and not one I am saying is innacurate. But there is the problem that we as a species have only been tracking temperatures for a relatively short period of time.
-
The Peer Reviewed paper it's from is listed in the diagram. Much ot the temperature record is based on Proxies as modern records are rather short. The oldest record is from 1659 to present. http://www.climategate.com/wp-content/u ... atures.jpg Again based on real worl measurements.
I suggest you watch the Niv Shaviv presentation as well as Vincent Courtillot's. Both are based on empirical observations not "models" and are in regards to their ongoing and published work. Dr. Courtillot discusses the problems with the observed data not matching the models.
The idea that 98% of Scientists buy into AGW is laughable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-X ... ed#at=1265
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8O ... re=related
CERN's Dr. Jasper Kirby discussing recent results of the CLOUD experiment. Based on Svesmarks Theory's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSu4ulI6 ... re=related
And in much more detail. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1d ... re=related
Correlation between Galactic Cosmic Rays and Low Cloud Cover. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gcr ... ORM=IDFRIR
-
The idea that 98% of Scientists buy into AGW is laughable.
For what reasons? You seem to suggest that either these scientists should never have been given doctorates or degrees if they come up with such a wild claim. But it isn't so wild, they earned their degrees, and their thesis is based off factual evidence.
-
Even some of the "Mainstream Alarmist" Scientific organisations are beggining to cotton onto the fact that the Sun plays a larger than they used to belive. Baby Steps… http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... europ.html
While TSI only varies by a small amount the Extreme Ultra Violet varies by up to 5 times as much as previously thought. This has watts per meter potential.
Was thinking about golws pro socialisim rant. My Province used to have many of those utility's and services publicly owned and operated. We also hade a huge debt. -$22.7 Billion in 1994.
The province sold off much of the power and telecom systems, put highways / road construction and maintenience out for bids. Even privatised the government monopoly on liquor sales.
In almost all cases service improved and costs went down. Our Province became debt free and began posting record surpluses. Much of which gets re-invested into schools, roads and hospitals. As an example we spend more on the failed "Green Alternatives" than the rest of Canada combined.
Both Canada and Japan hit the big debt crisis long before the current US/Eurpoe crisis. Japan went the route of trying to "Stimulate" and spend it's way out,(it's Lost Decade) and socialist style "Job's Bill" policys. It's never really recovered.
Canada went the route of cutting spending and debt reduction. One works the other not so much.
-
Hmm, we're in a low point for predicted solar activity currently, and have ice receding and sea levels rising.
Facts:
-
We are taking carbon that's been trapped underground for a long time and basically pumping it into the air.
-
Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas.
-
We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than our current biomass can absorb it.
-
Our civilized society has lots and lots of people living in places where small rises (man made or natural) in sea level will mean huge (likely society destabilizing) problems.
The science to predict what will happen in general is not hard, the only thing I've seen actual climatologists debate is the specifics (will we have 1 or 5 feet of ocean rise by 2020).
You can look at the situation and say it might not be a problem, but the above graphs predict a planet warmup on the way-if we add to the problem even just a little, it has major ramifications. The good/bad news is that it's likely too late to fully avoid the problem. Of course fixing it would be
socialism, pooling resources to benefit everyone. -
-
1- Yes this is true.
2-The evidence for Co2/Water Vapor feedback warming and the theory of AGW was disproven in the 90's. The integrated Global Radiosonde Archive contains more than 28 million soundings, from roughly 1250 stations. None detected the Co2 Warming models predicted. They also detected a drop in humidity which is counter to AGW theory. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/thorne ... -hot-spot/
3-Global Forest density is increasing. Some call it the "Great Reversal". http://www.bing.com/search?q=forest%20d ... SH&pc=BBLN
4-Sea Levels from an IPCC Reviewer. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Clim ... erview.pdf
"From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level]
was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely
no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid
rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely
no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per
year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but
they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which
they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction
factor,†-
The idea that 98% of Scientists buy into AGW is laughable.
For what reasons? You seem to suggest that either these scientists should never have been given doctorates or degrees if they come up with such a wild claim. But it isn't so wild, they earned their degrees, and their thesis is based off factual evidence.So called Science like this glides through peer review all the time. http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content ... uter-model
The poll was an online poll of 75 Self-Selected Climatologists. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how- ... there.html Climate study is a Generalist field, with many who are specialistsin one small area.
There are many who do not agree. http://www.petitionproject.org/
"Counting papers is not science, but it’s a hell of a way to show just how counterfeit the line is that “deniers†-
Co2 keeps rising but…
Global cooling is the hot news topic as scientists announce that the planet is stuck in the midst of a prolonged cooling cycle. Britons are being advised to wrap up warm for eleven years, at least.
Ross Hutchinson: Scientists have now "cracked the code of when it is going to be a freezing cold winter and when it is going to be a mild winter."
Fresh-faced Hutchinson speaking live on air to anchor, Becky Jago, announced that it's all down to "ultra-violet emissions" from the sun.
The ITV weather presenter explained, "UV emissions go through an eleven-year sequence of high UV emissions and low UV emissions and this affects wind speed and direction and that, of course, affects our weather and so they [scientists] are thinking that when there is low UV activity we are in for a freezing cold winter."
http://www.suite101.com/news/british-ma ... z1aUFByGO4
Along with the lull in solar activity we see a return of the Arctic "Ozone Hole" Due to the lower levels of UV. http://drtimball.com/2011/holes-in-the- ... ole-story/ Mainstream media ignored the cold arctic summer, the failure of sea ice to reach predicted low levels, and the ice reforming some three week ahead of average. What caused “exceptionally low temperaturesâ€
-
Sarah Palin is causing Global Warming?!?!?!?!?!?!!?
-
-
hi wat is global warming? can we stop it with a sonic rainboom??
-
@Deadlock:
hi wat is global warming? can we stop it with a sonic rainboom??
Nothing to worry about Deadlock. I think a sonic rainboom will almost certainly fix it, as a fictional solution, is all that is needed to deal with a fictional problem! : D
In reply to Entropy Mu:
Firstly the general point that ice levels are receding was only correct to a few years ago, they ice caps did shrink, then enlarged again, the latter of the related points being the pertinent one and the one often ignored by 'so called' climate research scientists.
While the Earth was heating up, for a few decades, it has been cooling for the last ten years. This is despite that man made greenhouse gases have been on the increase into the atmosphere. In particular China and India have been industrialising at break neck speed.
Therefore if the hypothesis that: Releasing greenhouse increased the Earth's temperature was correct and so therefore fact, the Earth should not only have continued to heat up, but the rate of its heat up should also have increased.
In Great Britain, last Winter we should have boiled, we had on the record one of the coldest winters of the last few decades. This is something all Britis could see with their own two eyes, as being true. It is wrong headed to suggest that the Earth is getting warmer and we are on our way to environmental Armageddon when people can see for themselves, it is getting colder.
With regards to the scientific community and 98% of climate scientists agreeing that global warming is occurring (ok that was someone else) this is also entirely inaccurate.
With climategate one of the most startling revelations, was how far East Anglia University had gone in repressing dissenting views, even in the face of scientific fact. This does mean that all along, there was plenty of scientists that did contest the state of climate research and plenty of dissent. What was disgraceful and what very much did come to light, was how far these pseudo-scientists at East Anglia had gone in suppressing the argument.
Real science means starting with an hypothesis, testing an hypothesis through experimentation and when an hypothesis is shown to be consistently true, only then does it become fact. Instead what actually happened was when the East Anglia University academics found themselves to be incorrect in their original hypothesis, was that they covered it up.
That they covered it up isn't part of some conspiracy theory or anything colourful, I think their reasons, are a lot more basic, those of self preservation.
Lets be frank, not many people at all, working at a academic institution, which is dependent on the state for grants, will turn around to the state and say 'Hi guys, sorry seems we were wrong all along about this global warming business, the Earth is now cooling, we don't need any grants or our salaries paying.'
Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, academics who depend on the belief of the state that global warming is real for their livelihoods, will not try and change the states mind and make themselves unemployed.
What made the CLimategate incident all the more important, was that East Anglia University provided information used all across the world, and by climate institutions and governments everywhere.
Therefore when their research was discredited and shown to be false, it also fatally discredited the man made global warming myth.
Finally socialism has never been shown 'in practice' to benefit everyone and society as a whole. Communism is really socialism taken to its full conclusion and communism has also been shown to be the most evil and murderous ideology ever imagined, with a total death count, somewhere in the region of 100 million souls, and that is of other communists.
I would happily recommend to any left winger they read 1984 or Animal Farm by George Orwell, a former communist, to understand the realities of socialism taken to its conclusions.
Even with so called democratic socialism, when it is implemented it always ends in a nation going broke and civil rights being severely trampled upon. In the UK, as I am sure is the case in other nations, it is the left which so often leads the censorship brigade as it does try and control society.
Government should only ever exist to lead society and guide society and not be a master over society.
Spartan